April 23, 2008

[I]f you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.

Do you think it's odd that "somewhat conservative" voters are more inclined to vote for Obama than moderates? It doesn't really fit Judis's "Next McGovern" theory.

The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state's college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote.... [I]f Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency.

Except for Lieberman, every Democratic Presidential candidate since McGovern has been the next McGovern. Hillary's just playing those cards close to her vest.

In the modern era, "voters who see themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative" are to the left of JFK. There is nothing conservative about voting for Obama; the impetus is instead a magical and messianic hope.

"Do you think it's odd that "somewhat conservative" voters are more inclined to vote for Obama than moderates"

These "somewhat conservative" Obama votes were cast so early in the primary cycle that Obama's rhetorical skills were still casting their magic spell. It was only after the unveiling of Rev. Wright that moderates began actually paying attention to Obama's voting record and specific policy goals, and recoiling in alarm.

"Do you think it's odd that "somewhat conservative" voters are more inclined to vote for Obama than moderates"

I wonder what they would be somewhat conservative about. I know that a significant number of young Evangelicals (and those outsiders might categorize as such) are Obama supporters. Such people tend towards being more conservative on social issues even if such issues aren't driving their votes.

So much so that I've joked that the two defining characteristics of being part of a renewal movement within the church are 1) using a Mac and 2) voting for Obama. That's what all the cool kids are doing in churches these days.

I disagree completely that College Students are liberal, especially the ones at Penn State. When I was voting in my home county, Centre, I rarely voted for the winner. (What a difference to move to Madison!) College students might vote for the younger candidate, but that doesn't make them very liberal as the article claims.

My hometown paper has a story that says that party switchers leaned toward Obama, by the way. The candidate for the 5th House Seat that induced my mother to switch parties lost.

Somewhat off topic, but did anyone else notice the people behind Obama during his concession speech? There was the guy who looks like a Larry David clone (and may well have been him for all I know); and there were the three male college-age guys all wearing easily identifiable Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts, which may be a case of a company taking guerrila marketing a presidential contest, or may be an odd coincidence. Weird in any case. Here's the youtube link.

What I do not understand is why the blue collar, working class whites are voting for Hillary. Until this campaign she has done nothing but sneer at them. Unless one considers racism, there is no reason for working class whites to vote for her.

I disagree completely that College Students are liberal, especially the ones at Penn State. When I was voting in my home county, Centre, I rarely voted for the winner.

I agree with Madisonman. College students aren't necessarily liberal, instead they vote for something that appears different to them than the status quo. American College students are too naive to understand the benefits they enjoy from the "status quo." Therefore, they are easily beguiled into supporting "change." even when the change will make their lives worse. College students always have been and always will be tools of inspiring leaders.

Obama is very attractive to college students for these reasons. However, Obama's message should be challenged because Obama isn't offering change on a lot of issues, especially cultural and educational issues. For example, Obama wants to mantain the status quo and the grip the teachers unions have over education on this country. A system that has failed Obama's most dedicated supporters - african americans. By supporting vouchers and other free choice issues, McCain could atttact a lot of college students and maybe even some black voters once the Obama spell has worn away.

Do you think it's odd that "somewhat conservative" voters are more inclined to vote for Obama than moderates? It doesn't really fit Judis's "Next McGovern" theory.

I do find it odd. But I wonder whether a significant percentage of those voters may be people who have persuaded themselves that Obama is lying through his teeth when he talks about, e.g. NAFTA, and other issues, and that he's really more conservative than he's presented himself in the Democratic primaries. Megan McArdle is my favourite example of this kind of Obama supporter -- her fond hope is evidently that her preferred candidate is not the candidate of "hope and change," but yet another candidate of shameless misdirection and falsehood.

There's every reason for anyone who's a Democrat to vote for Clinton if they like Democratic policies and want to win in the fall, yet don't like Obama, or at least, don't like his chances in the fall. Race has nothing to do with this campaign, despite the best efforts of Obama and his partisans to make it so. I used to think that we were getting close to achieving Dr. King's dream, but the Obama campaign's thrown a crowbar in the spokes: it's manifestly clear that any criticism of Obama during this campaign is going to be met with the claim that such criticism must be based on the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.

You say that you "do not understand ... why the blue collar, working class whites are voting for Hillary," MCG, but while I understand why some are voting against Clinton, I cannot understand why anyone is voting for Obama.

Thats a real winning argument for Obama--vote for me so you can't be called a racist! It looks like at least two commenters seem to believe the only reason one could possibly NOT vote for Obama is because of racism.

According to Real Clear Politics, when you total up the popular vote, Clinton is now leading by 100,000 votes. This includes Florida and Michigain. Obama supporters would argue that Michigan doesn't count because Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. A good argument, but the votes are what they are. The Clinton supporters would argue that Obama racked up all of his votes before we knew who Obama was and that if there were do-overs, Obama would get a lot less votes. In fact knowing what we know about Obama today, Clinton would probably crush Obama in florida by close to a million votes, which is why Obama doesn't want a do-over there.

Clinton has a good argument that Obama doesn't have the popular support that the pledged delegates today show. Democrats are having buyer's remorse and the losses in PA, Texas and Ohio show it.

It's not so much Obama's modified, limited, hedged, ambivalent support of the Rev Wright and Ayers that bothers me. It is the support that is granted to Obama by Wright and Ayers (and also Farakhan and Hamas and probably Sadr) that is bothersome. What do these people see in Obama that we don't?

Likewise, if someone thinks that Obama's just an atrocious candidate (I can certainly understand that, having noted that "I find [him] the most allergenic politician I've ever encountered," op cit. supra), voting for Clinton in the primary is an entirely rational action.

For someone who uses "op cit. supra" to call someone else obnoxious is the height of hypocrisy.

Maybe they are also considering the racism of Obama's Black Nationalist church?

Those silly Negroes should just get OVER it. I no longer hate blacks (except those who unfairly take advantage of affirmative action) -- why do they still bear a grudge? Hanging on my office wall are pictures of BOTH Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan (in a suit, not his uniform.) And aren't Christians supposed to turn the other cheek? God Damm those black racists.

People who worry that Obama is too McGovern-like should remember that McGovern was selected only after the Party refused to seat delegates chosen by the voters. Whenever the Democratic Party puts its wisdom above those of the voters, they lose.

So, we have Hillary winning by about 10% and Rush having advocated his Operation Chaos to get his listeners to switch their party registrations to vote for Clinton.

Did it help her? Maybe. By how much? Nobody really knows. And that is the way that Rush wants it. Did she really benefit from the VRC (Vast Rightwing Conspiracy) here? No one knows, which is part of the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). The important thing for the Right is that she is still in the race, and is likely to last until the Convention. And that means that the Democrats are likely to be running a well bloodied candidate this fall.

So, the real winner last night was probably Rush Limbaugh, regardless of how much he helped or hurt Hillary!

Simon said while I understand why some are voting against Clinton, I cannot understand why anyone is voting for Obama.

That’s because you’re a racist Simon.

Just kidding of course. I just wanted to beat Mortimer to the punch as obviously he views any critical view of Obama as racism.

As a fellow Hoosier, what are your thoughts on Hillary taking Indiana? Obama will pretty much seal up the big Region cities like Gary, Hammond and East Chicago although the outlying areas of Lake county I think will swing to Hillary. Obama will probably take much of Indianapolis and Marion county but outside of that, I think Hillary will sweep the rest of the state.

I just wanted to beat Mortimer to the punch as obviously he views any critical view of Obama as racism.

Not at all. I consider someone who uses the word nigger and then asserts that no black person is capable of voting for a candidate for any reason other than skin color, to be a racist. That has jack to do with Obama, and everything to do with racist Simon Dodd.

As of the "somwhat conservative" vs "moderate" disparity, it would be important to know how the unions divided in their support of Obama and Hillary. An endorsement by one or more unions could well have been influential for those union members sufficiently motivated to vote in the Dem primary, whether they regarded themselves as "somewhat conservative" or "moderate." But overall, I think Simon is right in suggesting that these self-descriptions are pretty meaningless in this context.

As for Judis, he is just giving voice to the primal fear that the Dems may have figured out a way to blow what all of them saw a few months ago as a sure thing. Nothing could drive the political class crazier than that. "McGovern" in this context just means loser. At this point, I think the Dems would nominate Francis the Talking Horse if they thought he would be the more likely winner in Nov.

Gergen and others have suggested that the Dems may have to stick with Obama even if they conclude he is more likely to lose in Nov, because otherwise black voters will abandon the party. That seems like Team Obama spin to me. There are lots of successful black Dem officeholders throughout the US; the likelihood that they or their supporters will abandon the party they have been dancing with for so long, and that has brought them the very substantial electoral success they have enjoyed, strikes me as highly remote. Some Team Obama members may refuse to support H! if she becomes the nominee, but the potential for a party-wrecking schism seems remote. Judging by their actions in staying neutral rather than lining up with Team Obama even now, I think the Dem professionals (i.e., the superdelegates) probably agree.

There's no reason for working class whites to vote for any Democrat. The only "workers" who have a natural home in the Democratic Party are government workers and government teachers, for obvious reasons. But real workers who produce real goods and provide real services? The antinomian party is their sworn enemy.

Mort, if the black voters are not voting on race but on the 'issues', do you find it at all curious that Obama is getting like 92% of the black vote yet in terms of policy positions, there is little difference between Hillary and Obama? Hillary hardly has the white vote sealed up but Obama certainly seems to have the black vote.

Gergen and others have suggested that the Dems may have to stick with Obama even if they conclude he is more likely to lose in Nov, because otherwise black voters will abandon the party. That seems like Team Obama spin to me.

Yeah, but if you are a super delagate, this possibility is in your head. It's better just to stick with Obama rather than be seen as a racist.

It is the support that is granted to Obama by Wright and Ayers (and also Farakhan and Hamas and probably Sadr

Do the laws of libel not apply to the internet? No candidate is more pro-Israel than Obama. The other day I posted the text of the invite to last October's Obama fundraiser hosted by the Crowns and Penny Pritzker. Reading it would make Hamas wail and gnash their teeth.

In their April debate, both rivals said they would respond forcefully if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and uses them against Israel. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/17/america/NA-POL-US-Democrats-Debate.php

I would assume that Indiana is at least as conservative as Pennsylvania, in the sense that Democrats use that term. So I don't see why Hillary won't take the state, especially with the momentum from Pennsylvania going for her.

I would assume that Indiana is at least as conservative as Pennsylvania, in the sense that Democrats use that term. So I don't see why Hillary won't take the state, especially with the momentum from Pennsylvania going for her.

This is not true. Indiana is a younger state, with more college students, and it borders Illinois, and there is no momentum. PA was a perfect state for Hillary demographically because it was old and working class. If I am wrong, I will let you smash a bottle over my head at the next Althouse meet-up.

Hoosier Daddy said..."That’s because you’re a racist Simon. Just kidding of course. I just wanted to beat Mortimer to the punch as obviously he views any critical view of Obama as racism."

Yep. Have you ever seen so clear-cut a case of projection? I wonder if projection also explains his fascination with using my full name - as an anonymous commenter, he fears being outed. Which is silly, of course, because I'm not an anonymous commenter, but silly is rarely a bar to projection.

As to Indiana, I agree with your take, with the caveats that Obama will take Monroe and Tippecanoe Counties - IU and Purdue. I'm not sure what'll happen in Vigo County - there, you've got a collision between ISU, which you'd think favors Obama, and the sort of blue-collar base that evidence suggests favors Clinton. Overall, though, I agree with you and Ricpic that Indiana's in the bag for Clinton.

Morty said:"I consider someone who uses the word nigger and then asserts that no black person is capable of voting for a candidate for any reason other than skin color, to be a racist. That has jack to do with ... racist Simon Dodd."

Mort, you're boring people. The comment that you're referring to said no such thing. You came up with a silly interpretation of my reply to MM that no other commenter agreed with (and at least two others apart from myself explicitly noted was ludicrous), and for what? To further some kind of chip on your shoulder that you've developed against me? Yawn. The regulars here know that you're pushing a false position, and anyone who just arrives and reads what's said will see you're full of it -- so what are you trying to prove, and to whom? As someone said the other day, you're metastasizing into DTL.

I would assume that Indiana is at least as conservative as Pennsylvania, in the sense that Democrats use that term. So I don't see why Hillary won't take the state, especially with the momentum from Pennsylvania going for her.

Mortimer said This is not true. Indiana is a younger state, with more college students,

Um, not so sure about that. Where do you get your figures on there being more college students in Indiana? Considering PA is twice the IN population I find that questionable.

and it borders Illinois,

Irrelevant. Trust me, Hoosiers are hardly influenced by what comes out of the Land of Lincoln. Except for maybe the Bears and that's confined to the Region.

and there is no momentum. PA was a perfect state for Hillary demographically because it was old and working class.

Mort, have you ever lived in Indiana? Statistically speaking Indiana has just as many old farts as PA and is about as working class as you can get. Cosmopolitan is not the word that comes to mind when one mentions Indiana.

former law student said..."Obama sat through 20 years of preaching about the victimization of the palestinians by Israel. You think he just suddenly changed his views? Realizing I have sat through six months of sloan's rantings I fear I likewise must be presumed to endorse them."

You've never been shy about piping up and arguing back against Sloan's rantings, or anyone else's rantings - you haven't sat quietly by, which is what Obama did. And that assumes that the comparison between a blog and something physically attended holds up, which I doubt.

When Mr. Obama is elected President, he'll balance the budget, bring our soldiers home from Bush's illegal war, make America loved in the world, end Islamic terrorism, close down Hailburton, make sure we all have free and accessible health care, end global warming, cure autism, and give every child a warm cup of pudding before bed.

So again why do college pukes trump older people wishes in this election? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I won the lotto tomorrow, I wouldn't buy my 20 yr old nephew a house, that's for damn sure.

former law student: boy, you're a trip. So, have you coughed up your proper tithes at the Church of Sloan?

BTW, PSU has changed radically in the last fifteen years. I was on campus last weekend at GAPS open gaming night. In the West Halls "Cultural Lounge". I thought my copy of America Alone would spontaneously combust in my man-purse. But seriously - the kids are a lot richer, less blue-collar, and dumb in different ways from the "good old days" of bi-monthly football-night riots in Beaver Canyon. Penn State has pretensions towards State Ivyness these days.

We don't need no educationWe dont need no thought controlNo dark sarcasm in the classroomTeachers leave them kids aloneHey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!All in all it's just another brick in the wall.All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

We don't need no educationWe dont need no thought controlNo dark sarcasm in the classroomTeachers leave them kids aloneHey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!All in all it's just another brick in the wall.All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

"Wrong, Do it again!""If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can youhave any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?""You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!

Bob Johnson's TV station promotes gang violence, profanity, anti-intellectualism, and degrades women. It should be called Black Evil Television. Not the best black guy to stand-in as "automatically not-racist against other blacks".

Yes, when Cedarford, Hoosier Daddy, Paco Wove, Revenant and Fen defend you from charges of racism, you know you're not a racist. You're just in the good comapny of white-sheet-wearing-cross-burners. Nothing racist about that. Nevermind your statements that black people are incapable of voting on any basis other than skin color, your casual use of the word nigger, and your belief that voting against the Civil Rights Act proves one is only "indifferent" to race. It is ludicrous to call such a person a racist. Absolutely ludicrous.

What African Americans need is a president who will promote real change for the black community. African Americans have adopted liberalism for the last 40 years and look what it has gotten them. Real change would be something to akin to what Bill Cosby is talking about - a new type of liberalism such as school vouchers or government policy that rewards virtuos behavior.

Obama is not offering real change to african americans. Obama only offers change to white elites (i.e. withdrawl from Iraq, higher taxes), which is why they support him.

You know, it really is possible to analyze the primary results so far and come up with arguments/spin for Obama. Mrs. Clinton has a case, but it is by no means overwhelming.

There is a real debate here. It would be nice to have it, however, free of sleep-deprived Obama-spinning commenters who seem to have no other occupation than accusing others of racism, of using the N-word, etc., etc.

This technique is known as poisoning the well. You may remember a loathsome old troll of cursed memory here who pretended to be an ardent Hillary supporter. Even if you were inclined to support Hillary, a little exposure to this pseudo-cretin on a thread would make you hate her in no time.

It may also be that true-believers are not that clever, and think that they will build support for their candidate by casting accusations that others are guilty of some sin by not sharing their enthusiasms, or perhaps not being the right sort of people.

If your goal is to convince people, you do so with arguments that appeal to their interest or intellect. If your goal is to make people hate your convctions, you do so by attempting to pillory them for the crime of disagreement, or for being some sort of malefactor whose crime only you or your faction may detect.

Back off Mike. 'Racist dirtbag' is a whole different category than sheetwearing crossburners. You're not even in our league. You're like the XFL to our NFL. Ok maybe not the XFL, more like the Canadian Football League.

Honestly, I thought that was Kerry, and the 2004 presidential fight resembled the 1972 one most of all.

The same underpinnings, from an unpopular war, to extreme left-wingers hijacking their Party, and a cultural Zeigeist which was very anti-incumbent (from Black Eyed Peas stumping for Kerry to Fahrenheit 9/11), were present.

Oh, garage, not you. I'm not talking about normal support from people such as John Althouse Cohen or yourself, assuming "normal" applies to politics any more. Hell, I'm even a lukewarm Hillary supporter. Yes, I voted for her in the Mass primary, and I would vote for her in the general. I think you know the kind of "support" I'm talking about.

I'd also add that if someone's goals isn't to convince people, or to cleverly poison the well in favor of the opposite candidate, then the the only reason to cast aspersions so widely is to convince others of that person's faction that he or she is one of them.

The right sort of person does not lower him or herself by debating the likes of Simon Dodd, not to mention the evil Fen, et al. That person is one of the Good People, who demonstrates that fact merely by pointing an accusing finger at the Bad People, to the applause of his or her cohort.

Do you think it's odd that "somewhat conservative" voters are more inclined to vote for Obama than moderates? It doesn't really fit Judis's "Next McGovern" theory.

Maybe it does still fit. The "somewhat conservative" bloc probably contains a substantial core of long-time Hillary haters, moreso than the "moderate" bloc would. Obama could run better among the former group because of who his opponent is, and yet still be a McGovern in the making in the overall scheme of things.

"... and your belief that voting against the Civil Rights Act proves one is only 'indifferent' to race. It is ludicrous to call such a person a racist."

Never said any such thing. You're alluding, presumably, to my comment here that Chief Justice Rehnquist was reportedly indifferent to racial matters, and that such an attitude struck me as being about right. You challenged the point (one that I relayed, not claimed) that Rehnquist was indifferent to race, based on the unsupported claim that Rehnquist "advised Barry Goldwater to vote against the Civil Rights Act." Stipulating for sake of argument that Rehnquist did so, that wouldn't refute the point that Rehnquist was indifferent to racial matters, and even if it did, that would still be irrelevant to my point. Which brings us to your latest batch of nonsense, quoted above: first, you can't even keep your facts straight. My exemplar was Rehnquist, not Barry Goldwater. Rehnquist did not "vot[e] against the Civil Rights Act." Second, even if he had, your point here would fail anyway, because I did not assert that Rehnquist (or Goldwater) was indifferent to race, still less that their position vis-a-vis the Civil Rights Act has some kind of probative value in assessing such. Your claim rests on either your inability to read or your willingness to misrepresent what was written, and fails either way.

God help your clients if you ever have to persuade a jury, Mortimer. You seem to have lost any kind of grasp on the line between opinion derived from supportable statements of fact and fiction of your own manufacture.

TheoGlad I made the troll cut! Honestly, I wonder sometimes - my problem is I am usually only moved to post something when I'm sufficiently pissed off. And this election has had plenty of that for me. The insufferable elites who don't give a crap about the issues being discussed telling her to quit, and the "progressives" constantly belittling of her supporters, her endorsements and proposals has been pretty enlightening. Last night was no different as we again had to go to the telestrator to flesh out all these "low information" counties that "defied" the elites and how horrible this all is to have people vote in a democracy.

As I type this Axelrod just said Democrats don't rely on working white class votes anyway. Just kill me.

1. Not saying you are wrong, but I do not recall any anti-Jewish sermons by Wright.

2. Black people are not all baby birds squawking in wait for the momma bird to come and vomit some government largess. Blue Moon's family is all black upper middle class and we just would like to see an inspiration black man win for once. We know our taxes are going up just like the white latte drinkers, but we just don't care that much. You really think the millons of blacks whose household income is over 100k don't know that they are going to pay more? You seem to be going all "What's the Matter with Kansas" on me here.

Blue Moon's family is all black upper middle class and we just would like to see an inspiration black man win for once.

I can appreciate that but in all honesty, I'll take an inspirational-less president of any color who will do what is right for the country rather than an inspiring leader who will simply make matters worse (economically, national security etc.) or simply raise my taxes in the interest of 'fairness'.

Yes, when Cedarford, Hoosier Daddy, Paco Wove, Revenant and Fen defend you from charges of racism, you know you're not a racist. You're just in the good comapny of white-sheet-wearing-cross-burners. Nothing racist about that.

Morty, I refer you to my earlier remarks -- if you won't grow up, at least troll more intelligently. The claim that Simon used to n-word was clever, even if it didn't pan out for you. But calling Fen, Hoosier and I "cross-burners" is so ridiculous that it isn't even insulting. It is downtownlad material, too over-the-top to be taken seriously by anyone but the terminally deranged.

I know your schtick is to make an absurd statement and then defend it to the death, but you're usually smart enough to pick a sufficiently obscure subject so that your audience won't immediately spot that you're lying. You're slipping, dude.

The funny thing is that the same people who vote for Obama because of his skin color are the first to accuse those who don't of racism. If voting for Obama because he's black isn't racist, then voting for Hillary because she's white isn't either.

I don't want Clinton in the White House because it's been 20 years since a non-Bush/non-Clinton was there. Why should these two families lead the country for so long? Are the -- what -- 50,000,000 other families so inferior?

Could not agree more. Considering I view Obama as another Carter, that view is even more apt.

I actually took that idea into consideration.

Except I think Obama is not a do-gooder idealist. He just talks a good game, and lets his followers infer the rest.

Without a doubt, this was a perfect storm for Obama to waltz into the White House but for Hillary to gum up the works.

I totally know what you mean, but in the history of the White House, no one has waltzed up to it, except maybe for George Washington. I do have to say how impressed I am by the political process (I'm British, if you recall) in the US.

It's much more competitive, much more taxing than any other system I've seen.

In the UK, though there is a run-up to an election being called, there is one month of Parties campaigning, and since it's not a presidential contest, it's mostly local. But one month, and it's over.

This has been two years in the coming, in the talking, in the handcapping.

Whew, we're all tired, but imagine the candidates!

Carter won pretty much the same way but without a Hillary to stand in his way.

I was reading up on this the other day.

Carter had to beat George Wallace, then Skip Jackson, then finally Morris Udall of Arizona.

One, controversial, the other a Watergate hero, and honestly, I have no idea who Udall was.

I think Obama really has it easier. It's just that Clintons don't know when to go away.

I think there was a time when the mere thought of a Bush or a Clinton would've smacked of royalism. John Quincy Adams faced that, I believe, and it there was 20 years between he and his father. (And his father was one of The Fathers. No matter.)

But those speaking of how things would be different if they could get a recount here or a new primary there are ignoring the fact that the same is true across the aisle. Conservatives aren't lining up to enthusiastically endorse McCain.

It's probably significant that the only two parties that can get elected in this country can't even hold a primary that reveals their people's true preferences.

vbspurs said..."I do have to say how impressed I am by the political process (I'm British, if you recall) in the US."

Seconded. It seems to me that most of those who are critical of the U.S. system(s) are either ignorant of the experiences of other countries and alternative means of carrying out the same sorts of functions, or haven't absorbed the lessons thereof. The American model remains the best system yet devised for governance and politics, warts an' all (and there are warts, to be sure).

I returned, I confess, a little non-plussed by all these personality conflicts which sometimes ruin threads on Althouse.

But unless you have radically changed in the year I was gone (Judy Tenuta /could happen), I'd just like to say, you're one of the best folks on here. It's a pleasure to read you always.

It seems to me that most of those who are critical of the U.S. system(s) are either ignorant of the experiences of other countries and alternative means of carrying out the same sorts of functions, or haven't absorbed the lessons thereof. The American model remains the best system yet devised for governance and politics, warts an' all (and there are warts, to be sure).

Amen.

Americans are very very picky about who becomes president. They have to have the right resumé, the right look, heck even the right wives to be even considered.

Because it's not the same in Britain, at least it wasn't until Tony Blair..., in America, the person not the system is the star.

If the system were a little more porous, as in South America, or riotous as in Europe, or too staid, as in the UK, we'd have the same lacklustre campaigns as the Canadians do (with respect).

I don't get the sense that either party has managed to nominate candidates that accurately reflect the people they presume to represent.

I do get the sense that compulsive FIRST-ism has distorted the outcome greatly.

The Dems have navigated themselves into an identity-politics war between two candidates without any serious policy differences, and the Reps have avoided internal conflict by nominating a guy whose claim to fame is defying the party.

Seems like a whole lot of incompetence to me. Maybe it's just too much work to nominate truly representative people. (I think it would take a series of eliminations to get at the most representative possibilities.)

I love Chase but don't credit me with David Wright who is a fine young man but has thrown his life and talent away by being with that scub team from Flushing. Hopefully they will both reevaluate their positions when their contracts are up and will come and join us on the Dark Side in the Evil Empire. We are gearing up the Death Star for another long run and will have a lot of contract room after next year.

DBQ - Good comments. I think the general frame of mind in the Obama braintrust was that the media LOVED Black Messiah and wouldn't dig too deeply...and except for the Rev Wright problem - which required a deflection to a "soaring speech on the REAL PROBLEM of race, not Wright" - the rest could be pawned off as "youthful intellectual curiosity" or as the patented Axelrod "Distractions From The True Issues That Only Barack Himself Could State Were Legitimate Issues."

Kudos to Team Obama for bullying the press into reverential silence about and flaws in the life or associations of the Great Man Himself - until very recently! Where things came up, even his fellow rival candidates were reluctant to break with the Black Moses/Black Messiah narrative of black and Jewish media, the Ned Lamont crowd, hard Left Progressives with Money.

(For fear of alienating their black and progressive Party constituents that had determined under identity politics Barack was racially and through victmhood deserving of the highest deference and praise, and any attacks on him woud be "dragging a talented black man of extraordinary promise, down...)

When things in Obama's past were brought up, they were brought up by the media mainly to debunk as "important". Like the few days of Rezko then dismissed as a "no nevermind, perhaps Barack should have been more wary, but he is so nice and wonderful that such small mistakes happen, as people like Rezko grasp his Greatness and wish to help!"

Some other negatives that will come out:

1. Obama has been mentored by three families of Jewish Billionaires since the early 90s. He and his wife have been given the patronage of careers they control through the billionaire's dominance of U of Chicago's board of Trustees and the votes by placement of other up and coming blacks they also mentored like Valerie Jarrett, vice-chair of the Trustees and the Obama Campaign's senior manager. (Making Obama's promotion to Senior Lecturer despite no substantial work in law, law journals understandable, and Michelles rapid rise through part-time jobs to a 319,000 executive job at U of Chicago pure Board of Trustee patronage by the Crown&Pritzker Families) For almost 20 years, the Obamas have been squired in the most Elite circles.This indicates that Obama is no threat to Israel and likely doesn't believe a word of what his NOI associates, Muslim contacts, or what Rev. Wright says other than his general contempt for bitter, less educated non-black masses. Obama was placed at Trinity to help "negrofy &authenticate" this "raised by whites lad with no slavery or 'hood in his past".

2. An interesting thing is that Obama's speech of Great Judgment, opposing going against Iraq, was made by the usual Lefties at the same time, along with such leaders of Great Judgement as Fidel Castro, bin Laden, Vladimir Putin, and Saddam himself.In Obama's case, he had been diffident about joining a rally attended by the Old Left until he was persuaded by Marilyn Katz and Bettylu Saltzman. Katz was a former SDS member tight with Bill Ayer and Bernadette Dohrn. Bettylu was one of Baracks Jewish sugar-mommas, worth hundreds of millions, but not in the Crown and Pritzker league of Obama patrons, but still a big donor. She was also a radical in her youth.

Obama's speech, which he backtracked from and took off his website when things were going well in 2003-4, then put up agains when things went South for Bush and his Bumblers, appears not to be the product of his Great Judgment, but two radical women from the 60s with hard Left Democrat Party clout dragging him, but hardly kicking and screaming, to give it.

3. Very little has been said about Obama's seeking to get a Muslim roomate while at Columbia, and his trip with that roomate to Pakistan.

4. While in Hawaii, Obama selected a "mentor black man" he met with regularly who happened to have been a black intellectual prominent in the American Communist Party and a Stalinist.

5. Obama, by anecdotes, appeared to gravitate towards a solid Leftist course of instruction at his California transfer college and Columbia. He refuses to release what courses he took, his thesises, his instructors.

6. The media has sort of sealed up about the Rep Davis "that boy should not be near the button" incident. With Davis's "boy" comment apologized for, it's swept under the rug. But it may come up again because according to Davis, Obama froze in an American Leadership exercise when he was called on to make decisions as a potential Commander in Chief in a nuclear crisis simulation.

This followed Obama's famous moment in an early debate where the question was a hypothetical - the US was attacked by two smuggled nukes on ships, destroying two cities, what would each candidate do. Obama went into "caregiver mode" saying his main concern was "helping the 1st responders meet people's needs" while the other Democrat candidates answering after Obama said we were at war, their first priority was to defend the nation and neutralize the attacker.

7. The Republicans are assembling a case for independents and Reagan Democrats that McCains record does show bipartisanship and reaching across the isle, sometimes to McCains political damage. And they are assembling Obama's voting record showing his is a consistent hard-left liberal who Never tried to lead in a bipartisan manner as a state senator and as a 2-year Senator before he left to campaign full time. In short, all Obama's present "transformational, transcending old politics" platitudes folded into his "soaring oratory" is just David Axelrod bullshit thrown out to dress up and put lipstick on an inflexible hardcore ideologue pig.

8. Analysis is going on by Hillary's camp and McCains camp about the "pied piper" nature of Obama's speeches - and how they do not match up with Obama's being a hestitant, stumbling spontaneous speaker and decision-maker.

Who are his writers, stylists, image-makers behind the curtain? And what sort of speech coaching has he received to template him after the cadences, crowd control, "command voice" of powerful angry Black Reverends of the highest claimed moral authority that blacks, youth, guilty whites eat up? And who was the genius that combined that with Obama's "supersmart, Harvard Law Review brillant professor voice of intellectual revelation"? Kids are eating up the Saint Martin clone/Professor Knows All product.

Team Axlerod test-marketed their black product with Deval Patrick and several black mayors. Obama is not plagarizing Patrick and the rest them in his speeches, just using tried and true Axlerod boilerplate speech product designed for a black man's lips.

Outside his black clients, Axelrod was also the guy who remade Paul Simon from a hardcore Lefty to the "Bow-tied Professor" and also the leader of the Team behind "Slick" John Edwards noted 2004 "new politics" speechifying.

Team Axlerod was also hired to make Elliot Spitzer "Our 1st Likely Jewish President" likeable and articulate - a herculean task - in his gubenatorial contest. It worked, Axelrod's team of media and image consultants made Spitzer palatable to voters to get a massive vote -then Spitzer cut them loose and showed his true self....

Oppo research needs to track Obama's schtick back. The inexperienced but smart and black Obama is the best raw material Team Axelrod has ever had to work with, though. Better than Breck Boy Edwards, better than Deval Patrick - though he guided both to euphoric fan voter following.

***************Lots of stuff out there on Obama, and as Michelle Obama is marketed by Team Axelrod as Baracks senior policy advisor, manager of campaign staff - scrutiny in her life is hardly off limits by the social convention we basically stick to of "leave the family not part of the political team out of it".The most productive negatives in Obama's case are:

1. Looking at his elitist and radical mentors that have nourished him and his wife since the early 90s, in the most exclusive and rarified of social circles.

2. Examining his efforts at the same time to be seen as "authentic black" through his associations with Wright, NOI, and other black bigots and racists.

3. Deconstructing Team Axelrod and showing Obama's brilliant speeches are not springing from his, but his being a wonderful empty vessel for a Team Axelrod product test-marketed for a decade with other black clients.

4. Serious analysis of Obama's Leftist beliefs and voting record vs. his claims that he is a bipartisan, transcending new sort of politician who will bring us all together with his vast intellect and Greatness.

AJ, I think your Sixer's could pull an upset. I loved their old team with Mo Cheeks, and Dr J and Darryl Lovetron Dawkins, and Marc Ivaroni and Andrew Toney and Moses and Bobby Jones. Now that was a freakin' team. I always rooted for them after the Knicks were eliminated.

garage: In reply to what you said long ago: Yes, I've heard the same thing! Working-class people used to BE the Democratic Party, but they seem to be out of the coalition these days.

Well, we've just had an over-long political analysis, so I suppose you can put up with an over-long analysis of how the failures of those politics look from the edge of the working class.

WARNING! RANT FOLLOWS!

You know, I have a foot in both an "elite" world and the working-class. I live in an upscale Boston suburb (rhymes with "I'm bored"), but I'm a manager who also works with his hands in manufacturing. The manufacturing happens to be the relatively hoity-toity and well-paying one of musical instruments, but I am closely connected with working people of all races and backgrounds. Some of us make more money than others, but we're all struggling to get by. And I will tell you from where I sit that neither political party has done jack for either the owners of or the people who work for small to mid-sized manufacturing companies. These companies are in some ways the backbone of the economy, and they and everyone connected with them has gotten screwed for 30-odd years.

Taxes, mandates, insane regulations, crazy real estate, fuel oil, and gasoline prices, bad schools, astonishing health-care costs, etc., etc., have made the prospect of living a decent, modest working middle-class life out of reach for almost all of the younger workers I know, and it’s been hard as hell for the rest of us. The owner of my company would be glad to pay higher wages, but he is very squeezed by the above-mentioned taxes, regulations, and health-care costs, that have decreased the margins around here to scarily low levels. And that’s in an environment where we have all the business we can handle and then some. I will also tell you that he is a very smart guy who has done pretty much everything right and nothing wrong, except perhaps be alive in 2008, a problem we all share.

Almost all the issues I'm ranting about are the result of crappy management of what used to be quaintly termed "political economy." In short, government at all levels has sucked, continues to suck, and if the presidential candidates are any indication, will continue to suck until hell freezes over.

The Democratic Party used to be the party of working people, and largely reflected their values and interests. It seems to have been captured by a bunch of snots who view themselves as above all that, and who want to change working people's lives to conform to ever-trendy abstract Marxoid political theory. But no matter what the policy specifics may be, you can be sure the political elites will continue to look down their noses at people who might go to Church, want to stay married and raise a family, and do other dreary, narrow working-class things that are so distasteful to the truly enlightened.

The political elites need dysfunctional, poor people they can pretend to help, while siphoning off wealth created by the real economy to pay themselves—with just enough left over for the programs to fail.

If, in fact, government helped foster productive, responsible citizens, and avoided creating more dysfunctional people, consigned to poverty by their upbringing, well, the political elites would be out of jobs themselves, wouldn’t they?

Speaking of jobs, Obama keeps promising jobs. Yet the policy specifics I’ve read from him are more of the same, which will NOT make life any easier for most businesses who might create those jobs. On the other hand, the Republicans are happy to import workers to help maintain the ongoing depression of wages, so that their constituencies may continue to enjoy low labor costs. Republicans, to their credit, want a good business environment, but only so they can exploit the shit out of us. Yes, it’s a perfect system: Democrats import voters, and Republicans import cheap labor.

And, please, don't start quoting statistics about how much better things are than in the past. I'm at least as old as Althouse, and I remember the past very well. While some people may live in mini-mansions and drive cars of Swedish manufacture, the rest of us live in the same kind of little crappy Cape we grew up in, drive 10-year-old Subarus, and are living no better than our parents did in the '50's and early '60's.

I’m going to stay late at work tonight, partly to make sure I do my share to help pay for the parasites, some of whom would be my betters, and all of whom would suck my blood. Given my throbbing veins right now, that may not be the worst idea.

And, please, don't start quoting statistics about how much better things are than in the past. I'm at least as old as Althouse, and I remember the past very well.

Well I am not as old as Althouse but am old enough to remember what things were like when my parents were 40 or even say 30 which was my age when I had my daughter and I can say that I certainly have it better now than they did in say, 1971 or even 1981. I'm old enough to remember gas lines and double digit inflation. We didn't go out to eat much and vacations when we had one was maybe a week at a low scale fishing resort in Minnesota.

So when the kiddies whine and complaint about how bad things are while their $200 Ipod dangles from their purse at the same time getting in their new car to head down for Spring Break all the while complaining about a war they'll never be drafted for it simply reinforces my belief that ignorance is bliss.

I know your schtick is to make an absurd statement and then defend it to the death, but you're usually smart enough to pick a sufficiently obscure subject so that your audience won't immediately spot that you're lying.

If my statement that Cedarford, Hoosier Daddy, Fen, Revenant, Paco Wove, and Simon were racist were so absurd, then when you responded, you wouldn't have left Cedarford and Paco Wove out of those you chose to defend. It would be absurd to claim no racists post on this thread, and you know it. That's isn't obscure, and it's one of the main complaints liberal bloggers -- some of them sane -- have about the comments threads here.

My argument was not too clever. Simon freely typed in the word nigger and he certainly did suggest blacks have inferior cognitive abilities in terms of voting and he certainly did defend voting against the Civil Rights Act as an act of racial "indifference". Those are facts. (And you'll note how seamlessly the third fits with the second; if they can't think well enough to exercise their civil rights, why give them any?)

As for my schtick, my real schtick is to pretend that I am a legal scholar and use big words and latinate phrases improperly, casually insult blacks and justify it with obscure citations to Robert Bork, and then rave on and on about how women are superior to men because I have a twisted fetish for my mother. Oh, no, wait. That's not me. Whew! I was confused for a second!

2. I never wrote the sentence that you claim is a quote. You wrote: "Your claim is that I was itching to call Obama a nigger." But I never wrote: "You are itching to call Obama a nigger." So you aren't even paraphrasing me!

3. You do not claim to be quoting me or paraphrasing me.

You are simply making up a defense of your use of the word nigger, in violation of your own stated principles and your own account of the rules here. By your own interpretation of Ann's rules, you should leave. But since you won't, you can stop being holier-than-thou and recognize that calling you a racist is fair game.

They regulated my neighborhood to death so that no one buys old houses to fix up because you have to replace all the windows made in 1900 with new huge holes that you can drive a miata through.

My favorite asinine home construction regulation, for here in California, is that first light switch in every room has to either (a) connect to a built-in fluorescent bulb or (b) be a dimmer switch. This is, supposedly, to ensure that homeowners can save power by dimming their lights.

But guess what doesn't work with dimmer switches? Compact fluorescents. So when I had to have reconstruction work done on my house, I actually had to replace all my CFLs with incandescents. I'm now using more electricity than I was before. So not only am I slightly poorer to the tune of about $120 a year -- I'm also producing more atmospheric carbon. Genius! Thanks, environmentalists.

Second, even if he had, your point here would fail anyway, because I did not assert that Rehnquist (or Goldwater) was indifferent to race, still less that their position vis-a-vis the Civil Rights Act has some kind of probative value in assessing such.

1. You seem confused as to what your argument even is.

2. Your belief that a vote for or against the Civil Rights Act is totally irrelevant in determining indifference to matters of race relies on a rather odd construction of "indifference," which I will define here and then lay this debate to rest for once and all: "absence of compulsion to or toward one thing or another". It is absolutely absurd to claim someone who votes against the Civil Rights Act, or who advises someone to vote against the Civil Rights Act, lacks a compulsion toward one thing or another in matters of race. Clearly, such a person has a compulsion to advise one to vote against, or to vote against, the Civil Rights Act, which most certainly concerns matters of race. It may not be racism, but it certainly is racial, and it most certainly is not indifference, which was your quite absurd and muddled claim.

3. I'm not sure why you care what my opinion is. As I stated before, use the n-Word all you want; it's a free country. I don't actually care whether you are a racist; I just think you should be honest about it if you're going to make these "indifferent" statements about the cognitive capacities of black voters. Be as racist as you want.

If my statement that Cedarford, Hoosier Daddy, Fen, Revenant, Paco Wove, and Simon were racist were so absurd, then when you responded, you wouldn't have left Cedarford and Paco Wove out of those you chose to defend.

Morty, I've asked you nicely on two separate occasions to flame people more intelligently. I know you're capable of it. If you want to encourage people to flame you back, you need to say things that have a remote chance of being taken seriously by SOME reader of the thread.

I'm disappointed to see one of our more original trolls just phoning it in like that. What, don't we deserve your A-game?

Is this racist thing still going on? I thought that was two threads ago! and I had NO idea there were so many racists on this blog--I guess I need to transfer my membership to Democraticunderground or dailykos where the posters are pure of heart, language and motive.

Keep repeating it - maybe the lie will get more true. I never said any such thing; never said anying "sugget[ive] of it; never even hinted it. I don't think that, either, although that ought to go without saying.

"and he certainly did defend voting against the Civil Rights Act as an act of racial 'indifference.'"

Never said any such thing. See my 1:28 PM comment, above.

"Those are facts."

No, they're distortions at best and lies at worst.

"You are simply making up a defense of your use of the word n[ ], in violation of your own stated principles and your own account of the rules here. By your own interpretation of Ann's rules, you should leave."

Regardless of whether it was a quote, paraphrase, or something else entirely, this point is utterly specious. Ann's rule was announced after the comments in question.

"You seem confused as to what your argument even is."

No, I understand it full well, although you seem to be struggling with it. See my 1:28 PM comment, above.

"Your belief that a vote for or against the Civil Rights Act is totally irrelevant in determining indifference to matters of race relies on a rather odd construction of "indifference,""

Misrepresentation by exageration. I didn't say that contemporaneous views on how a legislator should vote on the Civil Rights Act would be "totally irrelevant" to determining someone's views on race, I said that even if Rehnquist advised Barry Goldwater to vote nay, "that wouldn't refute the point that Rehnquist was indifferent to racial matters" unless you're going to claim that someone who is indifferent to questions of race has no other possible factors influencing their vote - logrolling would be an obvious one, or a background libertarian belief against binding private conduct. Since that position would be untenable, this point of yours fails, too. And in any event, what a vote for or against the civil rights act might connote can at most be relevant to determining what someone who wasn in a position to vote for or against it, which Rehnquist was not. What Goldwater's motivations might have been, and what they say about Goldwater's views on race, have to do with what Rehnquist's views on race might have been is left unexplained in your comment.

"I'm not sure why you care what my opinion is."

I don't, but there are people who post and comment here whose opinions I do care about.

blake said..."Simon, I don't get the sense that either party has managed to nominate candidates that accurately reflect the people they presume to represent."

Well, American parties are big tents, as the saying goes; they don't necessarily have a collective preference. Let's look at the GOP side. McCain don't accurately represent the first preferences of some members of the coalition. But it may well be that no candidate can accomplish that in a diverse coalition. If he is a compromise acceptable to all persons he claims to represent, then I think we can say the process has selected the optimal nominee.

Simon -- seriously, dude, WHY are you taking the bait here? Nobody in their right mind thinks you're racist. Morty doesn't even think you're racist. Just roll your eyes and let it go, like you would if DTL called you a homophobe or AlphaLiberal called you a Bush toady.

there are people who post and comment here whose opinions I do care about.

I think I speak for most of your fellow commenters in saying that nobody believes a word Mortimer Brezny says.

Plus, if one is going to call anyone a racist, using a tortured, out-of-context misreading of a statement for which there is a far more plausible and innocent explanation, the reputational stain attaches to the person who is childish and nasty enough to level the charge. The fact that he then flings his little arsenal of cowchips at a bunch of other commenters cinches the deal.

The fact is, the only reason I and probably most others are even reading Mortimer Brezny's comments at this point is to look out for your welfare. For however many years I've been reading your comments, Simon, you have always impressed me with your fair-mindedness, logic and thoroughness. You're the least likely to engage in ad homimen attacks of almost anyone here. And the idea that you're a racist is preposterous.

I did say one unfair thing last night on this topic. I unfairly associated Obama supporters in general with the free 'n easy way Mortimer Brezny and another commenter, Former Law Student, were applying the term racist to those who were merely raising questions about Obama's electability. That was very unfair to Obama supporters. These two clowns, Mortimer Brezny and Former Law Student, are in their own cheap little circus, one that stinks to high heaven of elephant dung.

I unfairly associated Obama supporters in general with the free 'n easy way Mortimer Brezny and another commenter, Former Law Student, were applying the term racist to those who were merely raising questions about Obama's electability.

I never said anything even approaching this. I took issue with Simon's comments for the reasons I have already expressed.

Mort has been a real dick lately. And aptly named too..Mort what are you Mort like 80 years old? Not one baby has been named Mort in about sixty years or so. Dick. Even that name would be an improvement over Mort.

I don't see how having a different interpretation of a statement makes someone a racist. I just don't even understand that claim.

You reversed the meaning of what I said. I didn't call you a racist. This was, again, in reference to your disgusting tendency to call other folks racists.

Is the problem that this blog's discussions are above your grade level? There are some other blogs out there where you can call anybody you want a racist and get tons of kudos from the other braying asses. Why don't you check some of those out?

in response to my comment that he and another commenter had a "free 'n easy way...applying the term racist" to several commenters:

Uh, no. Your comment was "I did say one unfair thing last night on this topic. I unfairly associated Obama supporters in general with the free 'n easy way Mortimer Brezny and another commenter, Former Law Student, were applying the term racist to those who were merely raising questions about Obama's electability. That was very unfair to Obama supporters. These two clowns, Mortimer Brezny and Former Law Student, are in their own cheap little circus, one that stinks to high heaven of elephant dung."

See the bolded part? That never happened. I never accused anyone of being racist for criticizing Obama. That's a lie.

I didn't realize calling Mort.B. a liar was ipso facto proof of racism, but hey, it's always nice to be talked about.

No. I wrote that Revenant didn't defend you because he knows you are a bit iffy on racial issues, and my proof of that was your position on the Commission on Civil Rights, i.e., that the United States shouldn't have created one in the 1950s.

I said you were "applying the term racist to those who were merely raising questions about Obama's electability."

I didn't say you called them "racist for criticizing Obama." You put my quote just a paragraph above your reinterpretation so you can see that clearly for yourself.

Your pathetic descent into juvenile name-calling started when someone got your dander up by talking about the demographics of Obama's support vs. Hillary's, which you rephrased as an insult against African-Americans, and then dredged up the n word business in a weak but slanderous attempt to support your ridiculous point.

Does the thread exist where Paco Wove and I argued about the Commission on Civil Rights?

Yes.

And is my characterization of his argument fair and accurate and complete?

Yes.

But I'm not going back to find it.

I will note, however, that you're quoting my hypothetical response to Revenant, who characterized my prior statement as an accusation that you were a racist. I never wrote that you were a racist. I grouped you in with a bunch of "white-sheet-wearing-cross-burners". One is slightly humorous and hyperbolic, the other is not, much like I would have had no problem if you hadn't deleted that comment last night that someone had stolen my meds, because I would have understood it was a hyperbolic joke rather than a serious accusation that I am mentally ill. But you did delete it, probably thinking that I hadn't seen it, so, for that reason alone, I apologize.

I lost some good friends to false charges implying I was racist re arabs. I'm SO sick of that bullshit.

Well, see? You ADMIT that you make statements about racial groups that make people uneasy enough to call you a racist. That's all I was referring to. You have made such statements in this forum before and I have taken note of it and people's reaction to it. We agree.

You ADMIT that you make statements about racial groups that make people uneasy enough to call you a racist.

Nope. All I did was link to a story about leftists beating up Young Conservatives at some college protest. I was trying to get a friend to realize what his bigoted stereotype of "rural redstate rednecks" would lead to. He was a Jew who never heard of Der Sterner. Go figure. No one ever died from reading Der Sterner, but the culture it served caused six million Jews to drop dead - George Will.

Oh, the accusation that I was a "racist hatemongerer" came from someone like you, all because the link I posted about the beating went to the LittleGreenFootballs site.

I had planned to have him hauled in on false accusations of child molestation, but he accidentily died a month later. So I still haven't gotten justice for being publicly tagged as a "racist hate-mongerer". Can you say "transference" Mort?

I never wrote that you were a racist.

BTW, if you're trying to apologize, none of this "I'm sorry if you thought I implied you were a racist" bullshit. You've got until tommorow AM to make it right. And if I don't feel its sincere and unequivocal, we get to play.

If it's racist for the white working class to be under enthusiastic about Obama, isn't it also racist for blacks to be over-enthusiastic? It's hard to find real policy differences between Obama and Clinton yet in Pennsylvania 92% of blacks went for Obama. If I didn't know better I'd almost think black voters were primarily motivated by the color of Obamas's skin.

It's hard to find real policy differences between Obama and Clinton yet in Pennsylvania 92% of blacks went for Obama.

As I noted the other night, the black vote only flipped from Clinton to Obama once Clinton started race-baiting in the run-up to South Carolina. In any event, there is a significant policy difference: the initial judgment to go to war in Iraq.

Another is the posture toward Iran: Clinton voted to named the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and terrorist organization; Obama did not.

Here's another: Obama wants to adjust the payroll tax cap as part of a broader reform of Social Security; Hillary Clinton does not, which disproportionately affects blacks, who have a lower average longevity and thus a lower likelihood of collecting from Social Security.

If I didn't know better I'd almost think black voters were primarily motivated by the color of Obamas's skin.

Right, well, at least you admit you might noe know better; Simon assumed that blacks couldn't possibly have any other rational, evidence-based reasons for supporting Obama, which is a racist assumption. Couple that with his use of the n-word, and there you have it.

Oh, the accusation that I was a "racist hatemongerer" came [unjustifiably], all because the link I posted about the beating went to the LittleGreenFootballs site.

Ah. That site is considered to be a locus of hate-speech by some. In other words, someone inferred that you must be a hateful person if you regularly read a site that many consider a locus of hate-speech.

I think that's awful. I was rummaging through the message boards at Stormfront the other day, but that doesn't make me a white supremacist. (That's not a joke.) Then again, while I think the hate-speech charges Mark Steyn is up against are terrible, he made some ridiculous comment the other day in praise of Cecil Rhodes. You can't go around praising Cecil Rhodes and not expect some backlash suggesting you're a racist. And I generally find Mark Steyn amusing.

I was not interested in statistics and abstractions, but only wanted to give my impressions based on long experience in different parts of the country and among dramatically different socioeconomic groups. My point is that working people have not done particularly well in the last 35 years, and that government—and either political party—has not done much for them or their employers. The Democrats have moved into cloud cuckoo land, symbolized by Obama, and the Republicans have ever been the real enemy of people like me, however they would put a pretty face on it.

I am in the very unusual position to be able to daily see slices of life from the highest levels of the international classical music world, to the lives of immigrants, not far removed from third-world poverty and chaos; from the haut bourgeoisie living in $1,200,000 mini-mansions and old Yankees in their family's 18th century houses, to the town maintenance worker and his teacher's aid wife living in a little Cape. I have gone in a single day from chatting with members of the London Philharmonic and wealthy Boston music patrons, to trying out my Portuguese on a newly-arrived Brazilian machinist to explain a setup. And this is not at all unusual.

I'm sure there are many people here of wider experience than I. But from what I've seen I haven't done too badly. So I would appreciate it if those among you who are inclined to disagree with anything I would say, would at least give me the benefit of the doubt, and dispute, if you wish, my conclusions but not my observations or my memory.

If you want statistics to back up my view that the working classes haven't done well, you should look at this site. You might want to start with this page. The Web design is embarrassingly horrible, but the information is generally well-known and pulled together nicely to make my point. There are a number of eye-blinding pages to get through, but some of the conclusions are that family incomes have been stagnant for most people in this country since 1970, that savings are now negative and at historically low levels, and that house equity is the lowest ever on record. There is a lot about taxation, productivity, etc. It's fairly grim reading, which may satisfy those of you who have to read about something on the internet before you think it's real. Some of us live it on daily basis, and so learn about reality that old-fashioned way.

I can imagine an argument over statistics would ensue from this. If it does, you will have to argue with yourselves, because I'm done with this very ugly thread.

He would agree with your assessments. I am not sure I buy his arguments entirely (the 2nd book having a bit too much US-in-Iraq-bashing for my taste), but his views on the housing bubble crash, lack of savings, gov't overspending, the looming Medicare/Social Security crisis, and consumer debt load lead to some significant and scary conclusions about the very near future.

For the love of God, Mort, give it up. Nobody is reading this thread, and nobody has any idea what this is about anymore. It was pretty unimportant when it started, except maybe to you. You are in real danger of becoming one of Sir Archy's "Lunaticks."

Speaking of unimportant, I wouldn't take up Althouse's electrons either, but the only reason I'm posting this is to correct my last comment for the record. I wrote "London Philharmonic" too early in the morning with no coffee, when I meant "London Symphony." Anyway, I was referring to specific events, and the LSO was the orchestra.

For the love of God, Mort, give it up. Nobody is reading this thread, and nobody has any idea what this is about anymore. It was pretty unimportant when it started, except maybe to you. You are in real danger of becoming one of Sir Archy's "Lunaticks."

Actually, it wasn't all that important to me at all. But I just couldn't let people go on slandering my good name.